Paper Example on John Locke's Theory of Natural Rights

Introduction

John Locke's longstanding contribution to political theory has to be the concept of natural rights. Central to his doctrine is the fact that human beings are liable to inalienable rights that include the right to liberty, property and most importantly life. According to this doctrine, the political system and civil society are built on the pretext of protecting the above mentioned natural rights. The role of the government is thus to ensure that each and every individual has the ability to attain these inalienable rights. In this write-up, the focus is on Locke's doctrine of natural rights with the goal of explaining and evaluating it. Locke begins off by establishing the clear difference between what the state and government in terms of roles and responsibilities (Locke, 2014). A better comprehension of Locke's distinction between state and government is to be found in the concept of consent upon which he argues that states and government draw their power.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

From this point of view, Locke asserts that the power of government comes through the consent of the people. It is from this consent that a government attains sovereignty. Locke goes on to emphasize the fact that the sovereignty of the state does not extend to the rule of the nation (Locke, 2014). In this case, therefore, the government through its people has the mandate to limit the actions and decisions made by the head of state. Locke asserts that the government can be seen as a form of trust that is achieved through consent. The authority it attains, Locke asserts, should be used in the realization of the goals and needs that necessitated its formation (Armitage, 2004). The inclusion of this particular aspect allows the people to make changes in the event that a government fails to accomplish its obligations. The people have the mandate and authority to eject and choose a government at any given point in time. Locke insists that the government has to protect the individual and accord him the right to pursue wealth and happiness. He asserts that while the happiness and the security of the individual are not essential in the running of government, it is through their consent that the government comes into existence.

Locke's writing came about as a refutation against the prevailing ideology that argued for the divinity of royal blood. According to Robert Filmer, kings owned and controlled people and their property (Finnis, 2011). This meant that the king controlled both labor and property. Locke's theory refuted this claim, choosing instead to emphasize the commonality and equality of the human species. He assumes a seemingly open-minded perspective in arguing that the value of property came through the labor of the people and as such, property had no natural value. Locke begins by dismantling the age-old belief that kings have a divine right to rule. He replaces this thinking with the fact that human beings are equal before defining how property and labor can be shared and protected. He achieves by making the individual the central topic of discussion. Here he delves into the dichotomies of liberty and duty that define property ownership and acquisition.

A notable aspect of Locke's theory is that it emphasizes the term 'natural.' For Locke, the word is specifically chosen because it denotes a pre-political condition that affects everyone regardless of their affiliations (Macpherson, 2010). Locke's idea is that in invoking the aspect of 'natural,' he confers equal responsibility and status to all men and women. His premise was that the word would allow the society to transcend limitations imposed upon them by predetermined moral and cultural predispositions. In defense of this line of thinking, Locke asserts cultural and moral conventions cannot trample the natural rights that bind human beings as a species. Locke's goal, it appears, is to appeal to the commonality of human beings rather than focusing on the aspects that perpetuate differences and separation. In Locke's point of view, a society with better moral and cultural standings can only be established once there is a consensus regarding the equality of all humankind (Locke, 2014). All the systems that emanate from such a status, Locke, argues, will posit justice and fairness of the highest degree.

For instance, a political system that is founded upon the fact that all human beings are equal and have a right to own property cannot infringe on the rights of its people in the ownership of property. Locke regards revolution as an instrumental part of any political system, arguing that it is the right of the people to turn against a government that fails to fulfill the obligations that have mandated its existence. Locke's theory strives to establish a governance system that can be held accountable (Finnis, 2011). As earlier stated, he achieves this by invoking the concept of natural rights which he divides into unalienable rights, liberties as well as duties. It is from this point that he develops a more substantial and elaborate theory where he argues for the existence of the rights that cannot be affected by political, moral or cultural systems. Once a society has attained such a consensus, it may go ahead and create a legislative authority that can take care of the rights of its people as well as protect their property. The essence of the systematic approach that Locke utilizes in defining g this theory goes a long way in helping the greater public comprehend the mandate, limitations, and obligations of the government.

More importantly, it serves to illuminate the role that the individual plays in the formation and management of a government. While seemingly, comprehensive in the analysis and exploration of property and wealth, several shortcomings can be noted in Locke's theory. A good example being his failure to recognize the concept of legal sovereignty in cases where parliaments and monarch systems exist as is the case with Britain (Vallentyne, 2014). In essence, he fails to define what sovereignty entails in its entirety. His conceptualization of sovereignty bears significant inadequacies owing to the fact that he fails to state where it resides entirely with the people or through the legislative assembly. Locke's theory may have elicited various reactions from the public at the time of its inception, looking at contemporary society; however, it becomes evident that Locke holds a tremendous role in the shaping the economic and philosophical precepts that have resulted in the current political and governance system. Its impact and influence can best be noted within the contemporary capitalistic economy as and well as liberalism school of thought, even as millions of people around the world strive to attain wealth and climb through social strata.

References

Armitage, D. (2004). John Locke, Carolina, and the two treatises of government. Political Theory, 32(5), 602-627.

Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.

Locke, J. (2014). Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley & Sons.

Macpherson, C. B. (2010). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke.

Vallentyne, P. (2014). Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In Central Works of Philosophy v5 (pp. 108-125). Routledge.